Amph Are we heading toward a world without movie stars?

The word 'star' is really over-used. A star is an actor or actress that can reliably open a movie.

Few and far between.

 

A star is an actor or actress that can reliably open a movie.

This.

 

So who qualifies?

 

Depp and DiCaprio can be relatively reliable in that way. Harrison Ford and Arnold had amazing stretches in the eighties to mid nineties where they really couldnt go wrong so far as the box office told and im not sure if we're gonna see that anytime soon. Dicaprio and Depp dont sell out to the studio system nearly as much as Ford or Schwarzenegger did, but its not even that either. James Cameron isnt gonna pay diCaprio A list money to headline Avatar, hes gonna pay Sam Worthington a half a million or whatever. For better and for worse probably. Christian Bale was already a respected actor but Batman Begins probably raised his quota quite a bit. Same thing with Downey Jr and Iron Man. You might be right in so far as action films are concerned, you dont really need big stars to open them. Theyre are only a few action oriented sequels left where Hollywood is going to have to shell out A list money. The Dark Knight Returns . A third Iron Man ? Is that even going to happen? I guess if they make Matrix:Resurrection , then that one too.

 

Depp, DiCaprio, and Pitt, I guess.

 

Personally, I would be happy if we didn't value a name over the story. I don't care if any of the actors are 'stars' or not. If I respect them as men/admire/respect their work, that's enough for me. I think Neeson is a great actor that I admired for awhile but with his darker turn in character/project choices in the last years I'm fine backing off him and if it's for good, so be it. If a project with him in it sparks my interest I may see it. However, the elitist manner in which 'a-listers' are handled has always has bothered me.

 

Who was the first star anyway?

Chaplin?

 

The very first was a woman called Florence Lawrence, now forgotten.

 

Mary Pickford would have certainly qualified.

 

In the silent era, yes. But most people haven't even seen a Pickford movie.

 

What about Cruise? His image has taken some tarnishing over his Scientology, but did his insane personal life hurt Ghost Protocol? It did not and, hell, I went and saw GP on Imax on opening weekend and I find Cruise as annoying as anybody. But still, you just know he's gonna put a good movie up on the screen, no matter how nuts he may be in other ways. It strikes me that he's still got as much ability to reliably open a movie as anybody else and that's quite an achievement, considering how bad his PR has been for the last few years and how old he's getting.

 

I think Cruise is a very charismatic star, but remember that before the unexpected success of Ghost Protocol, he didn't exactly sell out M:I:III, Valkyrie or Knight and Day. . .

What about Will Smith? His name can generally be counted on to put butts in seats, with the added benefit that he appeals to both the action flick crowd and the feel-good crowd.

 

Smith is a good one, though I've heard that his star power has been a little shaky since Seven Pounds? I'm not good at keeping track of these things.

Cruise I think has been helped by not putting his crazy front and center for a few years.

 

Do Will Ferrell ad Adam Sandler count as stars? They will sell comedies.

 

Considering he hasn't appeared in a film since, that would be fair.

 

Both Ferrell and Sandler are showing signs of age.